My first impression to all this: 1/ Either this was a hoax to boost sales 2/ something 'odd' one can't put one's finger on 3/ for some reason a double was used for PM, because he wanted out of the limelight or 4/ he actually died by either car accident or murder!
So I put my open to discussion cap on. It's been only a few weeks, but here's what is simmering.
The film PM is Really Dead by Joel Gilbert purports to be a documentary where Gilbert's office receives a mysterious package with cassette tapes by George Harrison. Indigest interview with him has these points: to the question why was the package sent to him, Gilbert said he had done documentaries on Bob Dylan; Harrison was a Dylan fan, so .... the voice on the DVD doesn't sound like Harrison as one can hear from early days... Gilbert says that it does have resemblance to the older Harrison. Another likelihood is that an actor is reading the transcript of the cassette (here assuming the cassettes are authentic, which we have no way of knowing). The general impression is that this is a mocumentary, but with a serious twist, to have people look at the clues and wonder why the clues?
Beatle fans (who know more of the details than meself) say that lots of the film has inaccuracies with the storyline/timeline... but here I'll just comment on the clues found in the Beatle records and album covers themselves.
Referring to the above first four impressions:
1/ the clues on the album covers are obviously not there by accident, although many can't be seen by just a glance; but enough that one has to ask: why would all these references to the death of a friend? I am speaking for myself, but I could never see myself joking over the death of a best friend, or even an acquaintance. The Beatles were friends for at least six years before they made it big, so I assume they became very close. I know that my best of buds and I were the best of buds within a couple of years, and we knew it. He became closer than a dozen siblings. So I'm transposing a bit of that to John, Paul, George and Ritchie (btw, I also just recently viewed Good Ol' Freda a fine film on the Beatles' secretary and friend before they became big and after. She never made money off them; she even gave away her Beatles memos to fans, when she could have sold them at auction ... this film shows a very nice side to the Beatles)
But back to the clues. On the Sgt. Pepper album, made supposedly after the death of Paul in a car accident (film version) or murder, there is a gravesite with flowers; a left-handed bass; Paul's sleeve has OPD band which supposedly means Officially Pronounced Dead ... there's a hand over's Paul's head, a blessing by priest? and other clues ... on another album the Beatles are posing with dismembered baby dolls. Two of the dolls have no heads and are on Paul's shoulders ... the original cover had a lot of blood, but it's said this was cleaned up. For another album, the Beatles have white tuxes and Paul has the only black rose .... there are dozens of these clues on the albums, plus on the records themselves. Again I ask why would anyone joke about the death of a friend? The clues are obviously there. Were the Beatles just morbidly nuts?
The film says MI-5 'handler' named Maxwell came to their studios early in the morning and brought them to the scene of a car crash to identify Paul's body, which they did; MI-5 opined hundreds of girls would commit suicide or something so they had to cover it up. "Do it or die" was the message. So John, especially just put in the clues. Of course, Maxwell saw through the clues and threatened them again. This was the reason John went to live in New York. "George' (voice) says that John phoned him that he was going to go public with the secret and soon after was gunned down. 'George' also wonders if the attack on him (knife-wielding prowler) was instigated by MI-5.
My conclusion on the clues is that they are obviously there. But why?
The other question is was Paul really replaced by a double? The film doesn't provide insight into this, but several Net searches give a few tidbits.
Among the most interesting is Wired magazine, Italian version, with two forensic scientists setting out to put an end to the 'Paul is dead' hoax. Instead, they came away perplexed and conclude that the Paul of today is not the same man as the Paul of the original Beatles. Their credentials can be checked, so a next step would be to verify their credentials as presented in the magazine, and then asking if their colleagues have peer-reviewed; and other ongoing investigations. But here's a few of their observations that stand out in my mind: the palate of the two men (one can be called Faul (false Paul) and the real one Paul are different: the palate can't be changed without a severe surgical procedure, which would take many months to heal, if that... they make similar conclusions to their teeth, the shape of their heads, lips, nose, etc.
I read the complete article, but forget where I read it (online)! My semi conclusion is that if this article is authentic, there's lots of food for thought. If it's just urban myth, its a great urban myth.
However, you can find discussions on David Icke forums: Paul : Alive or Dead? ... a commentary there named Faulcon/Hermajesty has good rebuttals to critics of the Wired article, and it seems they have been looking into this for years. Hermajesty view is that there is really a fake Paul. Whether he was killed in accident or murdered is another question.
Another avenue is voiceprints, which 'some' conclude do not match.
There could be several Fauls, if this is real. But the main Faul is said to be right-handed and has been photographed playing right-handed guitar. This is said to be the reason they didn't play live after the 'death' until Faul could learn to passably play left-handed bass. Btw, PM in Red Square shows 'Paul" lip-playing his bass; I thought it was because it was because it was easier to concentrate on his singing ... but now ....!
I'm sure if M sees this, he'll think Commander Double-O-Seventy-Seven has gone off many rockers, "Hm, can't be helped... Moneypenny? Make an appointment with Sir J, would you?"
I am not concluding that there is a fake Paul. But if this was a court of law, faced with the evidence at this time, I would have 51% reasonable doubt. The future may well reveal that this evidence is a load of bunk, but right now my head is open for absolute proof. (There are sites that state 'here is the absolute proof' of a Faul McCartney' in his physical changes and mental changes).
![Happy Birthday! :cake:](./images/smilies/Bdaycake.gif)